To criticize JLF based on the fact that mysognist douches like myself post on his board and not on the content of his book is the standard methodology of those either too lazy or too arrogant to really understand a thought system. "I am a feminist." Yeah, well so was Aileen Wournos so I guess you believe in killing truck drivers.

I tried dating sites this winter for the first time ever in my life ( I am 31). I have been single since 2012, except for one very short relationship in 2014.
Met and dating that one guy for a couple of weeks now who is supposedly frugal and with whom I have a lot in commons (we like to do the same things). Everything seems to be fine until I mention I get my clothes for free at the local dump. And then it went cold turkey when he learned I have 3 paid for properties. The more he learn about my ERE lifestyle the more he retreats. I think we are not dating anymore actually... too bad, I really liked him.

I think @MI might be willing to migrate north.

Anyways, I'd probably leave out the dump part, I think it's the mental imagery, when I think dump I think rotting food and flies, and when I think rotting food and flies I don't like to mix that visual with naked woman, which is what most men visualize when talking women's clothes. How about thrift shop? You went to the thrift shop (what's more thrifty than free?!) The paid for properties would make you very attractive in my eyes, you probably lost him at the dump part, then he was fully emasculated when he realized you have more assets than he does. Also, beware the gold digger males, they exist. I purposely pretended to be poor to my wife until we were already talking marriage.

Here's a guy criticising FIRE and forum members calling in to question his motives and a few ad hominems and no-one is in a hurry to defend the guy.

This is actually a great example in that all the comments, with the exception of one person calling him stupid, are all literally saying - in the article he says X, but I don't agree with X. In fact, I believe Y. Which is a totally valid way to have a discussion, even if you are in an echo chamber about it.

A girl stating sexism though, and suddenly she's a bitch, she hates men, she has poor relationships. Almost nothing about what she actually said. Other girls agree - yes, this is an issue. So then someone says we want to shoot truck drivers. (???).

I did reread the article, and what I think she says still stands. Yes, is she being purposely facetious to get clicks? Sure. Does that change her point? No. Does this thread, where people are making up stories about her, making up ridiculous statements about women in general, and telling women that their experiences are not valid because a handful of women were able to put up with it prove her point? Yeah, I think so.

If you re-read this topic the only person to actually use an ad hominem was Augustus, he was immediately called out and that's the only reason the conversation continued in that direction. Not only that, but multiple people agreed with the blogpost despite it being a caricature of both MMM and JLF and their message.

So post by a guy containing mild uninformed criticism and everyone disagrees only one person responding with an ad hominem and no one feels the need to call it out.

Post by women with extremely harsh and if being charitable horribly misinformed criticism(at least regarding the leaders even if you believe that sexism is part and parcel for the communities) and we get almost half of the people agreeing with the blogpost, half disagreeing with it and one person(Augustus) posting an ad hominem which is actually called out by both yourself and crazylemon very quickly sparking a whole discussion about it.

I think you are being blinded by the fact that this is hitting a nerve and so in this topic one person directly attacking the author rather than their points is seen as indicative of the community, when everyone else responding to it in my opinion has been reasonable even if they disagreed in either direction. In this case the average response to the woman's blogpost was actually more positive than the responses on the man's with almost half actually agreeing largely with it. Yet you got the impression that this one was more egregious.

I suspect if just like in the other topic no one had responded calling out Augustus he would probably not have responded further either and the gist of the conversations to both blogposts would have actually been quite similar with a single post using an ad hominem rather than addressing the writer's thoughts.

I don't really think it's a nerve or not nerve specifically. I don't really care about the guy who wrote that post, or the girl that did.

As a person who has read the forums for awhile, however, there is a lot of sexist language and tropes that make it a less friendly place for female people. This thread, titled 'random relationship derailment thread' seemed like a good of place to talk about it as any, especially since there was sexist name-calling happening.

If I made a post instead addressed to the few ladies that do post here and asked them their experience of sexism on the boards, how long do you think it would last?

This is actually a great example in that all the comments, with the exception of one person calling him stupid, are all literally saying - in the article he says X, but I don't agree with X. In fact, I believe Y. Which is a totally valid way to have a discussion, even if you are in an echo chamber about it.

A girl stating sexism though, and suddenly she's a bitch, she hates men, she has poor relationships. Almost nothing about what she actually said. Other girls agree - yes, this is an issue. So then someone says we want to shoot truck drivers. (???).

I did reread the article, and what I think she says still stands. Yes, is she being purposely facetious to get clicks? Sure. Does that change her point? No. Does this thread, where people are making up stories about her, making up ridiculous statements about women in general, and telling women that their experiences are not valid because a handful of women were able to put up with it prove her point? Yeah, I think so.

1 - It's obviously to anyone with much familiarity of Jacob and the blog that the article was a very poorly done hit piece. For example - one unrelated to sexism, when Jacob wrote plainly factually about the clothes he wears and then added a joke at the end, she included it in the article. I can't tell whether she didn't get the joke, or part of the hit piece includes attacking his fashion, or what. She's linking to super old blog posts like the one with that video, which as someone else pointed about above seems to be more of a general commentary of current "normal" that just happened to be shared by a woman. Maybe it's still interesting/relevant to link to something someone said/posted 10+ years ago, but in this case it's not even remarkable. Another example of how poor her article is was shared by someone else above - noting where she was picking out common words used (like MMM's Complainypants and baddasity) and declaring they are from the manosphere or incel (?). As you probably know yourself, someone who as read much of the relationship focused content on the forum could find much much worse quotes than she did. (which you could say is proving her point, but see my third point... what I mean here is - it's really easy to make a hit piece. It's easy to make a juicy and very impactful one. This one... is weak. Nearly all of the more impacful parts are just her own personal commentary and declarations, not actual blog/forum content.

2 - I'll declare that she is wrong about Jacob and MMM. I believe I've only see Jacob write commentary about women/dating that is respectful and thoughtful. I could see people who don't know/understand his writing style read some bits of his writing (the 'describing the landscape' type writing - factual and sexually non-judgemental stuff) getting the wrong impression. But if we're talking about someone doing research for writing an article, they should certainly be reading enough of his writing to understand and should not be getting the wrong impressions. But anyway, it's a hit piece, she was trying to make her point, not to actually understand.

3 - I do think that the forum has a problem with male/female/relationship related content, particularly within the last year. We have a lot of (mostly <30 years old) men who seem to be quite frustrated by women (or, more accurately, by things they think women think, and things they read on the internet about men/women), and seem out of touch with women/dating/sex/relationships. They seems influenced by MGTOW and Red pill type thinking. I think it's unproductive and unhealthy for them and the forum. It greatly lowers the content of threads, derails them, and of course drives people away. We're getting a lot of ridiculous posts, and also people bringing in really bad etiquette like just linking to some article or even a youtube video without actually making any point. These are my main annoyances with the forum and I spend less time here because of it.

I'm not sure what should be done to help. I'd probably think that the 'best' thing to do is to help them genuinely and in whatever positive ways can be found. I'm not willing to spend much time doing that. About 5-10 times in the last month, I've written a post basically calling out posts/posters, or challenging them to make posts with actual thoughtful content, and deleted them all before posting (or sometimes a couple minutes after posting and changing my mind). For example, when I'd read about THF mentioning he was thinking of lying on his dating profile (there was one somewhere before his more recent one sharing the results it had), I wrote a post saying that he shouldn't lie/mislead, though I can't remember now if I actually posted it. Also, my recollection of the forum response to that was most of "ahhh, not sure you should be doing that" and definitely not what you wrote. Maybe my memory has been weighted by my own thoughts (?).

One of the problems with calling out or correcting people is that it is almost never effective. That's why I delete most of my posts I write of that nature - I think "ahh, they'll probably just get defensive, it won't actually help them, it will take up more of my time if they reply and I reply to that... and I just don't want to make a negative post. I think it would work better to find some way to help change things by writings posts that are of a positive and helpful nature - along the lines of getting the calf into/out of the barn by leading it with your finger they want to suckle (rather than slapping and shoving them). But.... ain't got time for that. And also some of the times I tried doing that didn't seem to help at all.

This article is a fairly typical attack on the FIRE community by an outsider. Pretty much everything she implies (at least in my interpretation) in the first three paragraphs as negatives, I view as positives.

She then identifies, what I would also consider to be a problem, the fact that the conversation is mostly dominated by affluent white male nerds of a certain personality type (she just says male nerds). She also correctly identifies that there is a fair amount of sexism and bitching about not being able to attract female companionship that happens in the FIRE world. Some of the bitching is thoughtful and introspective, a lot of it is not.

The problem comes when she starts unfairly attacking everyone in the community and denouncing its leaders, one of whom we all know virtually and some of us personally. She constructs a narrative of sexism and then bends the facts to fit it. She implies that, because some members of the community are sexist, all members are and that it is therefore a sexist movement (I'm not sure, but I believe this is an ad hominem attack?).

Are there literally 0 other hipsters here, because the kind of argument levied in this article is one I encounter multiple times a day (not always about sexism). I've come to think of it as the xxxxx lens problem, where here the xxxxx is feminism. It's not that the xxxxx lens is wrong or uninteresting or unimportant, it's that while choosing to use only that lens and refusing to see the existence of others may highlight an important problem, but it won't further the conversation. Those using the xxxxx lens will also tend to take things out of context or make sweeping generalizations that conform to their narrow viewpoint.

I think this is a poor article about an important problem, which suffers from the authors bias to view everything in purely gender relational terms. It is offensive to many of us that she misconstrues a person whom we hold in very high-esteem, and who I have found to exercise the utmost discretion on feminist/ gender/ most issues as some dyed-in-the-wool sexist. I agree with Cats_and_tats that the response to this article as well as most gender issues on this forum is of poor quality and generally misses the point.

Weird side note... did anyone else notice how well researched this fucking article is? Does she have JLF quotes from the book, the forum and the blog? Maybe she's a secret FIREer herself.

Anyways, I'd probably leave out the dump part, I think it's the mental imagery, when I think dump I think rotting food and flies, and when I think rotting food and flies I don't like to mix that visual with naked woman, which is what most men visualize when talking women's clothes.

What kind of advice is this? Are you not getting your clothes from the trash? #EREShaming

I agree with Cats_and_tats that the response to this article as well as most gender issues on this forum is of poor quality and generally misses the point.

I think it's unfair to the people here making great posts in that category to say "the response to"... (emphasis on your quote mine). IMO, I am disappointed by the amount of posts missing the point, clearly not understanding the other's point of view, etc. But there is also a lot of good advice and stories shared here as well.

.... Everything seems to be fine until I mention I get my clothes for free at the local dump.

Are.... do you mean the landfil? Or "dumpster diving' from a clothing store? Can you share more about this?

Even as an open-minded ERE'er, I would be quite surprised if a date puts an image in my mind of her scrounging around the county dump. (I had to go to one a few times for work, and, man, I wouldn't want to picture a girl I was considering having a relationship with on her hands and knees digging around there. Maybe your dumps are a lot nicer(?)

Last edited by C40 on Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think it's unfair to the people here making great posts in that category to say "the response to"... (emphasis on your quote mine). IMO, I am disappointed by the amount of posts missing the point, clearly not understanding the other's point of view, etc. But there is also a lot of good advice and stories shared here as well.

Good point, well said, I concede. It should say "some of the responses to."

This is a great article if only because it gets male readers to consider that FIRE-space is a sexist bubble and its implications. The fighting words are not written to be persuasive, but they bluntly get the point across. Female forumites have been trying to point this out for years, but unable to overcome the (br)Overton window. The outsider nature of the publication and the writer’s perspective forces the FIRE-reader to recalibrate the window, possibly sparking a “fish, meet water” moment.

Weird side note... did anyone else notice how well researched this fucking article is? Does she have JLF quotes from the book, the forum and the blog?

Typical media mentions of JLF are highly superficial so I was surprised at the depth. It’s also a reminder that everything written here is public and may end up in an article, with attribution. Wonder if her quoting from the ERE forum will have a chilling effect.

@Fish: I see the MGTOW rhetoric growing everywhere online, not just on FIRE forums. You are going to see broader societal trends reflected here as the community / JLF gains more exposure. I sometimes follow, but don't post in, another community which is dominated by women -- it is reasonably active, so it seems like more women are into FIRE that our experience on the forum suggests. To be frank, if we excised a number of individuals, we would still be male dominated, but it wouldn't be that far off the friendliness in more targeted communities. Go back 5 years, it felt very different, but maybe I'm just misremembering...

It’s also a reminder that everything written here is public and may end up in an article, with attribution. Wonder if her quoting from the ERE forum will have a chilling effect.

^^This. The article was a hit piece with no journalistic standards. She had a point to make and went looking for ammo, as opposed to doing research and then drawing conclusions. Also, to echo what Fish said, quoting public figures from private forums (even their own) is out of bounds. I have been friends with jacob for years but would never presume to comment publicly on his wife or marriage, yet this author felt informed enough to do so?

This is a great article if only because it gets male readers to consider that FIRE-space is a sexist bubble and its implications.

I disagree with the notion that someone can post a provocative piece just to promote the conversation. It's a terrible excuse that's been used to club people unfairly lately. If a conversation is worth having, shenanigans are unnecessary. If they are necessary to make your point, maybe your premise is wrong.

As a person who has read the forums for awhile [...] If I made a post instead addressed to the few ladies that do post here and asked them their experience of sexism on the boards, how long do you think it would last?

We've had several threads discussing the issue over the last couple of years including the Sexual Harassment thread and one specifically about whether more men than women are interested in FIRE. How long have you actually been reading the forums? Or have you been reading a while but only occasionally? I ask because you've used it as a basis to level pretty harsh criticism at the forum and its members.

Cats_and_tats wrote:Does this thread, where people are making up stories about her, making up ridiculous statements about women in general, and telling women that their experiences are not valid because a handful of women were able to put up with it prove her point? Yeah, I think so.

Cats_and_tats wrote:And why should women fight so hard to be welcome here?

I'm going to push back on this. Men tend to be more active on the forum, but who's fault is that if women choose to lurk more often than men? If all the women who claim to lurk started posting a couple of times a week, the culture on the forum would change instantly. And I don't mean posting just to complain about the forum ... I mean posts of substance that steer the forum in a healthy direction. I've always thought that talking over/past rudeness or obliviousness is a better approach than rebuking or lurking or complaining anyway. I guess that's obvious given my post count.

----------

Let's be honest about that article and how a lot of women feel about ERE. The author detests the lifestyle, as do many women. She would scorn someone like me. Throughout my lifetime, I've received more criticism about my ERE lifestyle from women than men (by far). I've received more criticism about my ERE parenting style from other moms, including here (see the kids thread where Beca tells me I'm not raising my kids right). I've received criticism for not keeping an instagram-worthy appearance, including foregoing beauty-related items and clothing, I've also been shamed by other women for not keeping my house in the same fashion. I've never been criticized by male friends or forumites (some are both) for any of these things.

Many women who've shown an interest in ERE eventually find they are unwilling to give up on the trappings of adult females to pursue ERE hardcore. They claim it's because of the pressures on women to look good, but again, who's fault is that? Why wait for society's permission to change your appearance? Men are under pressures of a different kind and have to sacrifice some level of social acceptance to adhere to ERE. Why shouldn't women? Women can be just as judgmental -- most women I know would think ERE guys are scrubs regardless of their net worth. There's also much more pressure on men than women to have a career in the traditional sense. Sacrifice, albeit different, is required on both sides.

The FIRE movement is lead mostly by men ... it's not dominated by men. I think the terminology is wrong. If most of the leaders have been men, should we not give them credit just because of their gender? Are we at the point where jacob should apologize for being male? I guess I look at is this way -- men shouldn't feel uncomfortable because they have lead the way wrt FIRE, women should look at themselves and ask why more women aren't doing the same thing. Maybe there are good reasons (we've discussed some in another thread), or maybe women aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices, or maybe they don't want to.

My point is that ERE is hard on both men and women. Men, so far, have been more willing to stand up to the traditional roles and more willing to discuss the problems associated with FIRE/ERE. It's no wonder that the forum topics skew male. Women need to stop waiting for permission or validation. The solution wrt to the forum is simple -- women should post instead of lurking, share their own experiences and challenges, and be willing to let go of the sexism lens when it doesn't apply. It's been my experience that when women jump into the ERE conversation -- not the battle of the sexes conversation but the ERE-focused conversation -- they are treated with the same respect as any other forumite. In many cases, the guys have been fascinated and admittedly enlightened by the issues and viewpoints of the women here. And when they aren't, they are usually called out for it. (But again, don't wait for other men to call them on it, or simply move on and talk over the useless noise until it's drowned out.)

There may be other FIRE places on the web where women aren't treated fairly but that's not my concern. I'm addressing the (IMO unfair) criticisms leveled at ERE on this forum. I've known jacob privately as well as publicly for several years. You couldn't ask for a better champion of women's equality and respect. The author's criticisms were unfair and uninformed, and to continue them here, implying that jacob is somehow complicit in the FIRE movement's gender issues, is grossly unfair.

jennypenny wrote: You couldn't ask for a better champion of women's equality and respect. The author's criticisms were unfair and uninformed, and to continue them here, implying that jacob is somehow complicit in the FIRE movement's gender issues, is grossly unfair.

+1!

I also agree with some of your observations regarding getting more sh*t from other women. However, I think this is in good part due to the fact that women suffer more anxiety in the realm of having to maintain class benefits and class signifiers for their children and in relationship to their peers. IOW, women are more burdened with having to carry forward what my favorite post-modern (lol) thinker, Pierre Bourdieu, referred to as Cultural Capital.

So, for simple instance, I could not have children and not offer them at least the opportunity of taking piano lessons. It is entirely possible to maintain and acquire all sorts of Cultural Capital without trading very much Financial Capital, but this is a not insignificant creative challenge, which many single young men can more easily simply avoid until/unless they are attempting to partner up with somebody who does carry this concern.

You know, having left here some time ago, I pop by these boards every few months to see what is going on. Other than the journals, it is invariably the same old stagnant crap. And it stinks like many months or years-old stagnant crap.

Ironically (if you have read the ERE book), this place has turned into its own version of Plato's Cave. Let's call it "Jacob's Cave of Mostly Whiny Guys with Relationship Issues and Their Enablers".

In Jacob's Cave, the most popular thing to do is sit looking at the shadows for signs that the men here are the real victims of society -- "it's so UNFAIR", and especially those "nasty feminists" that are trying to keep the men down in so many ways. Points are scored by finding bullshit data points (articles, videos, whatever) in random media to support the dominant group-think "guys are the real victims" narrative. Various denizens claim badges of honor for being kicked off other boards because they are assholes -- "and proud of having bad manners, damnit!" (as if that took skill or practice). Extra points are scored by musing about "why there are hardly any women interested in financial independence", as if the cave and its shadows represent the real world.

Its practically a Girardian anthropological exhibit of Victimhood Claiming and Scapegoating, as well as Mimetic Rivalry with "those enemies keeping us down with their own Victimhood Claiming and Scapegoating us."

Meanwhile, in that real world outside Jacob's Cave, there are FI boards where half or more of the participants are women. There are women writing blogs and producing podcasts, sometimes with men and sometimes with other women. People -- including women -- are discussing topics like investing in real estate, raising FI-savvy children and the new no-fee funds from Fidelity. We have book clubs where we discuss things like Jack Bogle's books and "Thinking, Fast and Slow" next month. I went to a meetup with 150 people last Friday -- lots of women and many attractive ones there too, fellas. Real live Millennials, folks! And they make friends with old guys like me! Some of us are joining together next month to do a Junior Achievement program on finances at a local school.

I know you guys like the camraderie here and the pats from the enablers, but jeez this has become f-in pathetic. It's like "The He-Man Woman-Hater's Club" from the Little Rascals, with various people taking turns playing Spanky, Alfalfa and Darla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_mlv2UCuHo Buckwheat would probably not be found dead in here for other reasons. Come to think of it, he probably would be dead.

Maybe its time to work put the finances aside and work on your health and relationship skills.

Or not. You might not last 20 minutes outside the Cave, actually having to navigate dealing with people who might find you and the things you say to be repulsive. (Now all whine in unison about the very inapplicable-to-your-bullshit First Amendment.) Suit yourself.

I hope some of you make it out. But don't worry, I'll send others here who would prefer this environment.

Did you really pop in after a year and a half just to shit on the forum? Wasn’t your meltdown and grand departure in the Charlottesville thread enough? Your behavior is as immature as those you're complaining about.

@Dragline
Good job in misrepresenting the forums. If I look at the recently active topics I see journals, investment discussions, talk about the possibilities of alien life, fashion, discussion on variations on ERE/FIRE, ageing, history and travel just to list a few. Far from just being mostly whiny guys with relationship issues and their enablers.

Also it sounds like projection when you say people here like the camaraderie and pats on the back from enablers when you left when people weren't providing you with non-stop back pats for your political opinions here.

Finally you call others proud of being assholes, yet your response is pretty much exactly the same.